Hello,
Apache Airflow Providers (based on RC1) have been accepted.
Provider dbt.cloud is excluded from this release. I will cut rc2 for it
shortly.
3 "+1" binding votes received:
- Elad Kalif (binding)
- Hussein Awala (binding)
- Jarek Potiuk (binding)
6 "+1" non-binding votes received:
-
No problem! I very much appreciate your questions and critical thought
process as well. It's been pretty difficult for me to fully understand how
the SLA feature worked, given how overloaded and complicated the logic is
in its current state. So it really helps to have another invested party
OK so one difference here is, you're adding a new DAG SLA concept. Which
is useful. One subtle difference from what I think is the existing
"concept" of SLA is that you are evaluating it against when it started, as
opposed to when it should have started, and evaluating it only in the
course of
First of all, thanks for being so charitable in engaging in this dialogue,
I appreciate it.
Yeah I think that the notion that maybe Airflow is making really
impractical promises with SLA, well that could be true.
One question for you, as I continue to let this percolate.
Can you help me
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 7:23 PM Wei Lee wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Tested some example dags with DBT without encountering the issue.
>
> Best,
> Wei
>
> > On Sep 13, 2023, at 9:49 PM, Phani Kumar
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 non binding
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:03 PM Amogh
Hi Daniel,
These are all really great points, and I'm going to attempt at answering
all of them in no particular order:
On Expectations / SLAs / Naming:
I think you hit the nail on the head here, and I agree with you that the
naming choice of SLA is very misleading. To my understanding,
+1 (non-binding)
Tested some example dags with DBT without encountering the issue.
Best,
Wei
> On Sep 13, 2023, at 9:49 PM, Phani Kumar
> wrote:
>
> +1 non binding
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:03 PM Amogh Desai
> wrote:
>
>> +1 non binding
>>
>> Tested with a few dags from my test set.
+1 non binding
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:03 PM Amogh Desai
wrote:
> +1 non binding
>
> Tested with a few dags from my test set. No regression from the last RC.
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh Desai
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, 15:19 Pankaj Koti .invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Our
+1 non binding
Tested with a few dags from my test set. No regression from the last RC.
Thanks,
Amogh Desai
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, 15:19 Pankaj Koti
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Our astronomer-providers (async) DBT DAG based on the provider RC2 ran
> fine.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Pankaj Koti
>
>
+1 (non-binding)
Our astronomer-providers (async) DBT DAG based on the provider RC2 ran fine.
Regards,
Pankaj Koti
*Senior Software Engineer, *OSS Engineering Team.
Location: Pune, India
Timezone: Indian Standard Time (IST)
Email: pankaj.k...@astronomer.io
Mobile: +91 9730079985
On Wed,
10 matches
Mail list logo
